Planning Board Minutes

April 19, 2007 6:30 P.M.

City Council Chambers, City Hall

City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA

 

Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim.  For further detail, video recordings are available through the Lowell Telecommunication Corporation’s website at http://ltc.org.

 

Members Present

Thomas Linnehan, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Second Vice Chairman

Jerry Frechette, Member

Stephen Gendron, Member

 

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

 

Approval of Minutes

Approval of Minutes: September 7, 2006 as amended

Motion:

Member Joe Clermont motioned and Member Richard Lockhart seconded to APPROVE the above minutes as amended.  The motion passed with three members voting in favor and Members Jerry Frechette and Stephen Gendron abstaining (3-0-2).

 

Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2006 as amended

Motion:

Member Richard Lockhart motioned and Member Joe Clermont seconded to APPROVE the above minutes as amended.  The motion passed with three members voting in favor and Members Jerry Frechette and Stephen Gendron abstaining (3-0-2).

 

Approval of Minutes: October 16, 2006

Motion:

Member Joe Clermont motioned and Member Richard Lockhart seconded to APPROVE the above minutes.  The motion passed with all members voting in favor (5-0).

 

Approval of Minutes: November 6, 2006

Motion:

Member Joe Clermont motioned and Member Stephen Gendron seconded to APPROVE the above minutes.  The motion passed with four members voting in favor and Member Richard Lockhart abstaining due to his absence at the meeting (4-0-1).

 

Public Hearings

Repetitive Petition: 21 Eugene Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) by Albert Stamp for variances required to construct a single-family dwelling on the property located at 21 Eugene Street.  On January 22, 2007, the ZBA took an “unfavorable action” on the previous proposal at that site.  In order for the ZBA to consider the merits of this new application, the Planning Board must consent that the new application contains specific and material changes from the first application.  The Planning Board will take this vote at the conclusion of the public hearing.

 

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

Albert Stamp (21 Eugene Street, Applicant)

 

In Favor:

Albert Stamp (21 Eugene Street): After the initial application, I reduced the overall footprint to get side-yard setbacks, removed the garage, and excavated a portion of rock for safety concerns.  So when we went back for Repetitive Petition to the ZBA, they approved.

 

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: 

None

 

In Opposition:

None

 

General Discussion:

J. Clermont: One question. The new plan, revised Jan 31, 2007 noted a smaller setback.  This new proposal has no garage.

 

Albert Stamp: Yes, just a dwelling

 

R. Lockhart: You changed the architecture to more conform to the neighborhood?

 

Albert Stamp: Yes, to be more consistent with neighborhood.

 

J. Frechette: My thoughts, clearly, when looking at concerns from ZBA, the dimensions were changed for setbacks, and the concerns for ledge were looked into.  The design is much more pleasing than the original.  I believe there are material and substantial changes.

 

S. Gendron: Can I get an explanation on the process for Repetitive Petition?

 

T. Linnehan: For this process, this needs to be approved from the ZBA, and comes to us.  If they don’t approve this.

 

S. Gendron: I don’t see the ZBA showing concern over the undersized lot.  The vote before us is to determine if there are substantial changes to the design.  I don’t think the changes are substantial enough.  But since the ZBA determined this, I feel a little limited in what we can do.

 

J. Clermont: When this matter goes back before the ZBA one the merits, it will come back before us for the merits of the case.

 

T. Linnehan: One of the concerns the first time was the size of the big rock.  That is not there anymore. 

 

Albert Stamp: We tested the ground, and this is going to require heavy equipment to remove.  It was dug out.

 

T. Linnehan:  Even the property to the right in the neighborhood is yours?

 

Albert Stamp (21 Eugene Street): Yes.  It is deceiving.  At one point I had to purchase a sliver of the land.  It is deceiving. 

 

J. Clermont: Given the change in side yard setback, the overall footprints, the concern over ledge has been alleviated.  Motion to consent to applicant.

 

Motion:

Considering the merits of the presented materials, the Board consented that the new application provided material and substantial changes from the original application.  The Board moved to grant the Repetitive Petition application.

 

The motion was made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart.  The motion passed with all members voting in favor (5-0). 

 

Site Plan & Special Permit: 672-674 Chelmsford Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Daniel and Cindy Sacco for site plan review and special permits for the development of the property located at 672-674 Chelmsford Street.  The proposal includes the construction of two, three-bedroom units onto the back of an existing two-unit residential structure with associated landscaping and parking.  The proposal is located on an 11,559 sqft lot in the TMU (Traditional-Neighborhood Mixed Use) Zoning District and requires Special Permit review under Section 9.4 and Article XII and Site Plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

 

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

Ted Doucette (Polaris Engineering, Applicant’s Engineer)

 

In Favor:

Ted Doucette (Polaris Engineering, Applicant’s Engineer) Here before with two different application proposals.  One proposal included two buildings that did not meet zoning.  We chose to extend the building.  Applicant met with neighbors, and heard no complaints.  Chelmsford Street is here.  The existing building is here; the new structure is here, parking underneath and 6 on the lot for 8 total.  We have proposed landscaping that is designed to screen parking.  Some PB comments before is to match architecture.  We have done this.  Existing building here.  Both include the bump out gables.  One of the comments from the DPD is to make sure the siding matches to create a continuous building. 

 

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

None

 

In Opposition:

None

 

General Discussion:

R. Lockhart: Question relative to density.  The material we have, are there opportunities to buffer?

 

Ted Doucette (Polaris Engineering, Applicant’s Engineer): I was speaking with staff today, and we can definitely work together.  There are no definitive plans to do anything now, the neighbor would like to see this tree come down.  We are open to putting some shrubs back here.  The applicant will like to place more trees here. 

 

R. Lockhart: How about lighting?

 

Ted Doucette: We are putting some by the garages.

 

R. Lockhart: There were some questions from the engineer regarding testing the soils?

 

Ted Doucette: yes, we have been waiting for the weather to be better.  We know we need to do some testing.

 

S. Gendron: I have some concerns about this project.  The character of the neighborhood.  I feel as though adding two more units in this neighborhood is detrimental to character.  Down on Newal Street with single family, and allowing this development we are setting a precedent to do this type of project.  So that is my primary concern.  Getting in and out of that driveway is a challenge.  That may be a traffic problem.

 

J. Frechette:  Just the design of the building, if you could go over the height of the building in relation to the neighborhood.  Is it possible to lower the slope of the roof to match the existing building? 

 

Ted Doucette: I recall the conversation of the rooflines.  We have it close, but we can definitely look at this to try to address the Board’s concerns.

 

J. Frechette: The concern is the screening of the parking from the roadway.  Right now, that is more green space that should be used, so one does not look at a parking lot.

 

Ted Doucette: These shrubs that exist and are 6 feet high.  I think they are better than trees, and we can address these in talking about the landscaping. 

 

J. Clermont: just a few, on your plans, the bump outs, does that provide living space?

 

Ted Doucette: that is going to be for living space. 

 

J. Clermont: and you are going to add the gables?

 

Ted Doucette: yes, the owner will add the gables.

 

J. Clermont: will that be living space in the attic?

 

Ted Doucette: no that will not be living.  The old are 2 bedroom units, and the new are 3 bedroom units.

 

J. Clermont: did the fire department review the plans?

 

Ted Doucette: I spoke with Captain Weber and he referred me to the fire code.  I also spoke with the water department, and he wants me to complete the plans at once and then come back.

 

J. Clermont: I’d like to see comments from the fire department for safety concerns.  And the traffic engineer noted the need to screen the cars from the roadway view.  Can you point out the trees to be taken down?

 

Ted Doucette: the maple tree here, and the pine tree here.  The neighbor requested to take down the pine. 

 

J. Clermont: we are not hearing any opposition, but it would be nice to see vegetation along the back portion of the lot.  The location of the utility meters, where will they be?

              

Ted Doucette: there is space for them in the front with landscaping.

 

J. Clermont: and the retention system will need an easement for the City.

 

T. Linnehan: did you review the note from the engineer?  He noted the underground detention system.  If a system cannot be put in, he recommended that the units should not be built.

 

Ted Doucette (Polaris Engineering, Applicant’s Engineer): Yes, I can do that.  Will that be a decision or a condition of approval?

 

T. Linnehan: Well, that is up to the Board, we usually don’t see that strong wording.  The plan itself, we talked about the preliminary plans.  I think my mind has changed, and I think this is a better layout.  It has less of an impact on the neighborhood.  From the street now, it won’t look that different.  If you are going to side it, side the entire building.  You indicated that you would do this, which is good for appearance sake.   James can you elaborate on the landscaping?

 

J. Errickson: yes, I wanted to make sure the Board was aware of the loss of vegetation and landscaping, and the possible need to add additional landscaping.

 

T. Linnehan: thank you.  If those trees came down, would you be wiling to have new ones planted?

 

Daniel Sacco: yes absolutely. 

 

T. Linnehan: I think you can add some landscaping that will address the neighbor’s desires, but add some landscaping.  We have approvals from wastewater, traffic engineer.  Comments from city engineer.  Missing from Fire and water departments.

 

J. Clermont: approve: given lack of opposition, vote to approve with conditions.

 

Motion:

The site plan and special permit were approved with the following conditions:

1. The applicant must receive an affirmative comment from the Fire Department, and/or address comments necessary to achieve approval from the Fire Department.
2. The applicant must receive an affirmative comment from the Water Utility Department, and/or address comments necessary to achieve approval from the Water Utility Department.
3. The applicant must address the comments made by the City Engineer, and incorporate necessary changes to the plans to receive an affirmative comment from the City Engineer.
4. The applicant must develop a building façade that appears as one building, so as to not project the appearance of a new building being attached to an existing structure.  This may be accomplished in the form of re-siding and/or painting the entire finished structure.
5. No utility meters, including electric, water and/or gas meters, shall be located in any location visible from Chelmsford Street.  If utility meters are located in such areas, they must be properly landscaped so as not to be visible from Chelmsford Street.
6. The applicant must create an easement to the site to allow the City to access the drainage system in the event of an emergency.  The City of Lowell will have permission to enter the site, repair the drainage system and charge the owners on the site, in the event that the drainage system fails and is not repaired by the condominium association.
7. The applicant must work with the DPD design planner on a final landscaping plan for the site.

 

The motion to approve the site plan and special permit was made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart.  The motion passed with four members voting in favor, and Member Steven Gendron voting in opposition (4-1). 

 

Site Plan: 812 Gorham Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Watermark Engineering and the City of Lowell School Department for site plan review for the development of a the property located at 812 Gorham Street.  The proposal includes the renovation of a late nineteenth century Butler Elementary School and the new construction of two educational wings.  Parking for the facility will consist of 24 spaces in two parking areas with access off Ellsworth Street and Carter Street.  The proposal is located on a 59,000sqft lot in the TMU (Traditional-Neighborhood Mixed Use) Zoning District and requires Site Plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

 

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

John Haley (Watermark Engineering), Architect, Francis King (26Livingston Street), Mark Goldman (58 Oakland Street)

 

In Favor:

John Haley (Watermark Engineering) Jay Langley (school department), Francis King (26 Livingston Street), Mark Goldman (58 Oakland Street) the architect.  Been including all departments throughout the design.  We are currently in the bid page for both projects.  Once the bit pricing comes in, the city council will determine whether the schools will be constructed.  That bidding process ends next Wednesday.  There are many actions that have not been taken care of yet until the vote from the City Council.  Once that vote is taken, we will involve the neighborhood for this project. 

 

Architect for School: We do have a model up here.  The original building is this center building here.  We are adding on two wings.  The right side is classrooms, specialty classrooms. Existing will be fully restored with general classrooms.  Excavating here for a lower level to open to grade.  The goal is to create modest renderings to create two additions to the existing buildings.  The new additions will be lower than existing building to keep scale down.  Plan to keep buildings as far forward as possible.  Reach balance of new flanking existing.  Keep clear of residents around the site.  Creating new bus drop off Gorham Street, with a planting buffer between access point and Gorham Street.  Two parking, one across the street for staff, and one on site.  Parent drop off, will be around the rear, to keep busses and parents out of conflict from each other.  Interior, reusing some space for storage.  Administration and gym to right, class rooms in center, and specialty rooms in center. 

 

Francis King (26 Livingston Street): Owns company with access from Livingston Street.  I have some concerns here; this is the first I have seen of the drawing.  Livingston is a narrow street.  I am in the waste removal business.  Employ 15 people.  See how this project will have an impact on me.  I am not here to stop this project.  It’s a pleasure to see that this school will be renovated. There are concerns, about parking, how can I live and the neighbors live with the school.  Will there be on street parking for school personnel?  Where do I move my people to park?  Street width on Livingston, is difficult, are there adjustments in that area? 

 

Mark Goldman (58 Oakland Street): it is a great mix of renovating the old school and making the additions compatible to the buildings.  I am in favor of the project.  Are there going to be any outside space for school children to play in?

 

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

None

 

In Opposition:

None

 

General Discussion:

T. Linnehan: How is the structure of the existing building?

 

Architect for School: We had an engineer review integrity of buildings.  There has been water damage.  But that has not affected the structure.  There may be other questions, but they will be addressed during construction.

 

J. Frechette: If you could go over the parent drop-off? And taking into account Mr. King’s questions, and how it all addresses parking.

 

Architect for School: Parent drop-off, we had several meetings with the school department and the city to come up with the best solution to access the building.  It was determined that all the busses and delivery vehicles would be off of the main drive.  Only passenger cars will be on Livingston.  The parent drop off is here in the back of the building. 

 

J. Frechette: can you discuss the parking, and in regards to the interior floor plan.

 

Architect for School: there are 16 general classrooms, and 4 others, so there are 20 classrooms.  And there is the need for 3 parking for every 2-classrooms.  And there are 24 parking spaces. 

 

John Haley: there are other city owned lots around the area, and the parking needs will need to be met before the project continues.

 

Architect for School: there is a hard surface play area here, and soft surface play area here, and a gymnasium.  It is a very tight site. 

 

J. Frechette: I appreciate the visual look, and fitting in the new wings. 

 

John Haley: there will be some additional roadway improvements on Livingston.

 

S. Gendron:  We don’t want to delay anything to get state funding.  In its current state, the parking seems woefully insufficient.  And I think it would be a good idea to have a condition to have additional accommodations to be made for the project.  Is that a regulation gym?

 

Architect for School: The state actually regulates gym size.  So it is similar to other junior highs.

 

S. Gendron: How about the bleachers?

 

Architect for School: Yes, the bleachers are designed for both a game and an assembly.  And they are electronically operated.

 

S. Gendron: currently, is the back entrance used to get in and out of the building?

 

John Haley: There is an access way to get into the basement, but the primary entrance is the front of the building.

 

R. Lockhart: I think, looking at the site, it is a tight lot.  In my opinion, the fact that the play area is needed to be larger.  And did you say that the facility will be serviced through the front door?

 

Architect for School: No, the service uses this roadway, but the supplies are dropped off here.  The issue was the access off Livingston is not adequate. 

 

R. Lockhart: can you address Mr. King’s concern?

 

Architect for School: not any more that what we have already noted.  There will be more traffic there, since the school is not being used there now.  Busses and trucks will not use Livingston Street. 

 

R. Lockhart: have you worked with historic board personnel on this?  It is an historic building.

 

Architect for School: yes.

 

John Haley: they were hoping that the new windows match the old style.

 

R. Lockhart: can you address the engineer’s comments?

 

John Haley: Yes, we will address those concerns if we proceed with this school further.

 

J. Clermont: can you point out what portions of the project need to acquire land?

 

John Haley: there is a parking lot here, and the design was moved forward.  There are some properties that have encroached on the City property.  But we are not taking any land.  The city owns a significant piece of land behind the area here; we can look at these parcels.

 

J. Clermont: Has there been a traffic study for this project?

 

John Haley: no, we have just accounted for parking.

 

J. Clermont: the engineer has had a number of comments.

 

John Haley: yes, the new plans have addressed those concerns. 

 

T. Linnehan: We have received conservation, health, water, and engineer all in approval.  Do you know how many students are going to be here?  And employees?

 

Architect for School: the school is designed for 550 students, and 75 employees.

 

T. Linnehan: would you consider having faculty park off site, and keep visitor close to the building?

 

John Haley: yes that is our intent.

 

T. Linnehan: When we have had projects before us with the schools.  Usually we have the whole site plan before use.  If we did give this a favorable reply, if you could show us a full plan in the future, maybe as a condition of approval.

 

Motion:

The site plan was approved with the following conditions:

1. The applicant must apply for and receive any and all required variances for the project, including those necessary for the construction of the access drive to the school site off of Gorham Street.
2. The applicant must incorporate all of the City Engineer’s comments from memo dated March 28, 2007.  An updated set of plans must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
3. The applicant must provide adequate parking for the project site, as required under Section 6.1.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance, requiring “3 parking spaces for every 2 instructional rooms.” 
4. The applicant must present to the Planning Board at a regularly scheduled public meeting any modifications from the current plans that add new parking areas or alter the layout of the proposed parking areas servicing the school.
5. The applicant must complete a traffic study for the proposed school project, which must provide suggested modifications with regards to Livingston Street.  In the event that a traffic study cannot be provided, the applicant must work with DPD’s Transportation Engineer to review the proposed project, conduct any necessary traffic studies, and incorporate any and all of his comments regarding traffic mitigation around the project site and on Livingston Street into a final set of plans.

 

The motion to approve the site plan was made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart.  The motion passed with all members voting in favor (5-0). 

 

Site Plan: 108 Pine Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Watermark Engineering and the City of Lowell School Department for site plan review for the development of a the property located at 108 Pine Street.  The proposal includes the construction of a new two-story elementary school building and demolition of the existing three-story brick elementary school building.  Parking for the facility will consist of 73 parking spaces in two parking areas with access off Wilder Street and Morey Street.  The proposal is located on a 124,000sqft lot in the TSF (Traditional-Neighborhood Single-Family) and TTF (Traditional-Neighborhood Two-Family) Zoning Districts and requires Site Plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

 

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

John Haley (Watermark Engineering), Architect, Mark Goldman (58 Oakland Street), James Plazas (561 Wilder Street), Sandy & Kevin Courchene (31 Morey Street), Kim & Steve Layte (25 Morey Street), Issa & Joyce Ansara (21 Morey Street), Donna Cox (41 Morey Street), Ray Toomajanuan (5 Light Avenue)

 

In Favor:

John Haley (Watermark Engineering): Morey School here has the same timeline with bidding.  It is more than likely that if one school will proceed it is the Morey School.  The primary concern here is in regards to the park.  It will be utilized during construction.  The new school will be used during construction.  The park will be designed in the future.  If this school does proceed is to meet with the current teachers, students and parents.  At this point in time, we have not done this.  We do have a phasing schedule. 

 

Architect for School: We are taking down an existing building, but keep it operating while the new building is constructed.  From a site plan stand point, this is why the school is cited where it is.  Here the building is a two-story building.  The height is lower than existing building, with a large green space in front of it.  We have tried to articulate the end of the buildings, so it is the similar width of the existing houses to scale the building with the houses on the street.  The exterior will be a combo of brick and concrete block.  Also using some metal panels, to create a pattern similar to clapboard or surrounding houses.  We tried to separate bus and parent drop off.  Curb cuts for buss off Pine.  Parent drop off is off morey street.  Interior: the main level has cafeteria. There is plenty of parking.  Administration is by the main entry.  Gym is in center of building.  Classrooms flank each side.  Down one level are more classrooms and gymnasium, with access off Wilder.

 

Sandy Courchene (31 Morey Street): I live in neighborhood.  Good project.  Glad to see open space. 

 

Steve Layte (25 Morey Street): concerns as to how close the building will be to our houses.  In the original plans, we had the café, service, and dumpster close to our house.  And we are concerned about this.  Parking during construction, how will this be handled?

 

Donna Cox (41 Morey Street):  In Favor of the school.  During school hours, Morey Street is one way.  But teachers exit parking now, but will it continue to be one way.  Other question, do we have plans for the park.  Last question, heavy equipment, will that prohibit use of park as it is right now?

 

Joyce Ansara (21 Morey Street): have problem with vandalism, with gangs, dealing drugs.  What are they going to do with rest of property where park is now, where the basketball court is now?

 

James Plazas (493 Wilder Street): what is the distance between this house and the school.  Are there going to be windows on that side of the school?

 

Ray Toomajanuan (5 Light Avenue): I have concerns about the park.  One of the dirtiest parks there is, and what will happen with the park?

 

John Haley: The intent with the park, is that it will be taken over for the construction.  After the park will be replaced, in concert with the parks department and it will become an elementary park.

 

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

None

 

In Opposition:

None

 

General Discussion:

S. Gendron: compliment neighbors coming out tonight.  What happens during construction for parking and play area?

 

John Haley: The front area here, is not going to be parking lot until this is complete.  This will be the play area, and will be available.  The entire park will become a parking lot, and the existing park will not be used except for parking and heavy equipment.

 

S. Gendron: With regards to the park, I really think this is an opportunity to change that park.  How many classrooms?

 

Architect for School: There are 20, and 30 parking spots.

 

S. Gendron: can you discuss the parking?

 

Architect for School:  There are 20 classrooms, and the requirement is for 30 spaces or 3 spaces per 2 classrooms.

 

S. Gendron: can you discuss the house on Wilder Street?

 

Architect for School: yes, there is a required 10 feet distance here, and the side of the building will have no windows.  The building is 25.5 feet high, to top edge. It is substantially lower than it is now. 

 

S. Gendron: We are going to continue to have Morey Street to be one way?

 

Architect for School:  the circulation will be going on a certain direction, and there was discussion about this, but I don’t think this is resolved.

 

S. Gendron: are you going to keep the neighborhood informed?

 

John Haley: Yes, we intend to do so.

 

J. Frechette: can you go through the drop off area again?

 

Architect for School: Sure, buses turn off Pine and exit Wilder.  Cars would come this way, off Morey.